in my opnion if there is another lockout on bettmans watch i dont know how he stays in the commissioner seat...how long has he been nhl commissioner (after screwing up the nba)? im guessing *someone correct me* he started in early 90s, 92-93, so in 20 years he has lead the nhl to 2 lockouts and now a potential 3rd one coming up....that is a horrible track record and the owners got basically EVERYTHING they wanted in the last one that was going to fix everything and now THEY are the ones that want to rework it AGAIN...my opinion bettman needs to go, i wish the nhlpa had fehr back in 04-05 i think he would have done a heck of a job. He is doing a great job in my opinion, but i just don't want another lockout, but i cant see the owners rationale in dropping players salaries down to the lowest since 02-03 when the sport has grown over 50% since the lockout financially.

so bettman has to go

You said it yourself. The last lockout the owners won the deal by a large margin. The owners love bettman because he gets them what they want. He won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Obviously players and fans are going to hate him because he's giving us everything we don't want, but to the people that have an actual vote in the matter (the owners) bettman has done incredibly.

It would be folly to think these positions are simply token gestures by Bettman in order to move the dial on the players’ percentage of the pot. The commissioner is a tough negotiator. No position is given up easily.

Bettman is a terrible negotiator. Every time he negotiates a CBA,he wants a new CBA the next time. The owners can't play another year with this CBA which Gary negotiated. Not a few tweaks. A whole new CBA. Maybe Gary is the problem. Third lockout. Third lockout. Third lockout. This is the same clown who couldn't figure out why everyone was expecting a lockout to happen in September. He told that to Mike Francesa during the playoffs. Why is everyone so down about the CBA expiring? Its all speculation. The NFL had 1 labor stoppage since 1987. MLB has negotiated 3 CBA's with any lockouts or strikes. Labor peace since 1995. The NBA had a lockout in 1998 and 2011. They played 1/2 a season in 99 and 12. They had a new CBA in 2005 without any trouble. Bettman always has an issue.

You said it yourself. The last lockout the owners won the deal by a large margin. The owners love bettman because he gets them what they want. He won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Obviously players and fans are going to hate him because he's giving us everything we don't want, but to the people that have an actual vote in the matter (the owners) bettman has done incredibly.

If Bettman got them what they wanted and Bettman won the deal by a large margin,why does Gary want to rip up the entire deal and start from scratch? The NHL notified the PA 120 days before September 15 that they wanted a new CBA. They could have continued to play under the current CBA which Gary "won by a large margin". Article 3.

Bettman is a terrible negotiator. Every time he negotiates a CBA,he wants a new CBA the next time. The owners can't play another year with this CBA which Gary negotiated. Not a few tweaks. A whole new CBA. Maybe Gary is the problem. Third lockout. Third lockout. Third lockout. This is the same clown who couldn't figure out why everyone was expecting a lockout to happen in September. He told that to Mike Francesa during the playoffs. Why is everyone so down about the CBA expiring? Its all speculation. The NFL had 1 labor stoppage since 1987. MLB has negotiated 3 CBA's with any lockouts or strikes. Labor peace since 1995. The NBA had a lockout in 1998 and 2011. They played 1/2 a season in 99 and 12. They had a new CBA in 2005 without any trouble. Bettman always has an issue.

i'd argue that proves more that bettman is an idiot then a bad negotiator because each time he locked the players out until they caved and gave bettman virtually everything that he wanted and then a few years later needed a new deal cause it was so bad in favor of the players

You said it yourself. The last lockout the owners won the deal by a large margin. The owners love bettman because he gets them what they want. He won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Obviously players and fans are going to hate him because he's giving us everything we don't want, but to the people that have an actual vote in the matter (the owners) bettman has done incredibly.

maybe you can answer this or someone else can...
is bettman (nhl commissioner) getting the owners what they want or is he selling to them what he feels the need?

IF he is going by what the owners want and is not realizing they don't know what is best for themselves then he has to go and IF he is selling them on what he feels they need, then he has no clue what they need and has to go....darned if you do, darned if you don't

not sure the exact rules but during the last lockout, lundmark had already played 2 seasons and 111 games in the nhl and then played 64 games in hartford during the lockout...ortmeyer played 58 the year before with rangers. so by same standards hags should be allowed

"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally

i'd argue that proves more that bettman is an idiot then a bad negotiator because each time he locked the players out until they caved and gave bettman virtually everything that he wanted and then a few years later needed a new deal cause it was so bad in favor of the players

I agree with this. The owners have been too stupid to take advantage of what they got in the last CBA. The owners can't control themselves, they keep sticking it to the other teams by giving it ridiculous contracts, they keep undermining each other, and they want the players to pay for it.

The real problem isn't the salary cap ceiling, it's the cap floor. The floor is so high now, the lower revenue teams can't spend up to it and still make a profit. Some of those low revenue teams probably shouldn't be where they are located anyway.

If the players are offered a stupid contract, what are they supposed to say, "no, I don't want that, it's too much"? I'm usually in favour of the owners, they put up the financial risk; they should get something out of it; but their actions make it hard for me to have much sympathy for them.

Are they stupid to have a lockout? Yes, but at the same time they're not stupid enough to have it drag out forever. They will work something out and you are always gonna have issues when owners and players go to negotiations. Everything will be back and fine by the end of the year and the league will suffer no major damage.

If they were to lose another year then we have every right to be made but the lockout is one of the few tactics owners have to that they can use. You know damn well they were going to use it all along.

The NHL is nowhere near baseball is the eyes of mainstream America. When MLB had their last little lockout, it to guys on HGH having a homerun derby to get the average sports fan back on the wagon. After the last NHL lockout, ESPN (The sports network ) basically dropped the NHL off the face of the earth. To say that had little, to no effect on the NHL is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it's the worst thing that's happened to hockey in the last 15yrs. So to say it's not a big deal when it comes to the NHL and the NBC sports network channel or CBC, then sure, I guess its okay. But when it comes to ESPN and getting bad publicity on the "major " networks, it's nothing more than another black eye for hockey and it's limited fanbase... like it or not..The "Winter Classic " has helped get hockey back on the radar the last few years, lets not take a major step backwards...

Butler was pretty good his first season and then just fell off a cliff. This seems like a typical Lamirello type of move where he signs a young player that had a rough year. If you look at Carter/Bernier, they turned out pretty good for supposed scrap pieces.

It's worth mentioning, for no other reason than pointing it out, that Bettman didn't have a problem extending a CBA in 1998. He hasn't had an issue every time he's gone out there.

And honestly, I still don't think we're going to have an issue this time.

That depends if Bettman gets pressured into it by the owners, which is a possibility(despite his comments). Still, Fehr/NHLPA will have to agree to it, which they may not. The players may not want to postpone this, despite the fact they can negotiate during the season.

I think the more likely route is that we lose 10-20 games and start either November/December. Then again if both the owners/players make concessions, this could get resolved fairly quickly. We will know better Tuesday.

Bettman is a terrible negotiator. Every time he negotiates a CBA,he wants a new CBA the next time. The owners can't play another year with this CBA which Gary negotiated. Not a few tweaks. A whole new CBA. Maybe Gary is the problem. Third lockout. Third lockout. Third lockout. This is the same clown who couldn't figure out why everyone was expecting a lockout to happen in September. He told that to Mike Francesa during the playoffs. Why is everyone so down about the CBA expiring? Its all speculation. The NFL had 1 labor stoppage since 1987. MLB has negotiated 3 CBA's with any lockouts or strikes. Labor peace since 1995. The NBA had a lockout in 1998 and 2011. They played 1/2 a season in 99 and 12. They had a new CBA in 2005 without any trouble. Bettman always has an issue.

Adding fuel to the fire. This is pretty off base. Don't get me wrong, I hate Gary, and think he's a terrible commissioner who's screwed the Rangers specifically on many occasions, but I think you're post is pretty ignorant.

Besides the MLB, the other sports have trouble negotiating the CBA's for the most part. The reason is simple - it's difficult to predict what the economy will look like 8 years into the future. You try and lets see how on point you are in 2020. The economy was extremely fickle in 2004, no one knew what direction it would go in, and thus it was difficult to negotiate a CBA as owners tried to prepare for the worst and the players absolutely refused to cave in. In 2012, we've already been through a few recessions, and who knows where it will turn. Some owners can barely fill in venues and afford to keep their teams in general. Similarly, players of this league are the lowest paid out of any sport and to get paid any lower would be an embarrassment. While there seems to be some sort of level of economic stability this time around that wasn't evident in 2004, owners are still trying to prepare for the worst.

Here is where Bettman is to blame. He expanded too rapidly and not strategically enough. He was too ambitious without thinking ahead of what future complications there might be. Putting the NHL in PHO, ATL, Florida, CLB, etc?! Clearly the fan support in those areas will not be as great as it is in other areas. However, the owners of those teams still want to remain as profitable as the owners of Montreal, Vancouver, NY, and Chi for example. And now, with the possibility of another economic recession, and the greater likelihood that an owner of a small market franchise will have trouble maintaining his team - let alone being profitable, means that the owners of those franchises will try their hardest to make this CBA structured for them. Realize that there are more owners in the league with economic instability than ones who are financially secure and you'll see that there are just too many of them to be able to have a CBA negotiated quickly.

As for Bettman, i'm not blaming him for negotiating a new CBA every 8 years. I'm blaming him for being an idiot in general, who only saw the pros and didn't understand the cons when he expanded the league to where he did. He's an agent of the owners. They pay his salary, he's THEIR mediator. He'll act as their spokesperson during any CBA negotiation. They might have hired a ****** commissioner, but in the end, no matter what he does, the owners as a collective will force a new CBA to be made, even if it does mean a lockout.

Elliotte Friedman reported there are certain high revenue teams which are against increased revenue sharing. They want the players to take the hit. I wouldn't be surprised if Pitt is one of those teams. They used to be a team in financial trouble. New building. Higher revenues. They are one of the top ten revenue producing teams. When the CBA began,Pitt was one of the bottom teams. They probably got a check but they don't want to write a check. LA. Boston. Detroit. Billionaire owners. They didn't become billionaires by giving $ away. Bettman needs to have a BOG meeting soon and get his guys in line. Rangers. TO. MTL. Philly. Chicago. Van. Those are the top ten. Calgary is right there too. Fehr won't agree to a deal without more revenue sharing. Rangers are second behind Toronto. $14M is the max they contribute. The Garden agreed to more revenue sharing to get the NBA deal done and the cap was kept as the previous year level. Floor increased. The rich teams help poor teams reach the floor. They want a cap system. That's part of the system.

The NHL is nowhere near baseball is the eyes of mainstream America. When MLB had their last little lockout, it to guys on HGH having a homerun derby to get the average sports fan back on the wagon. After the last NHL lockout, ESPN (The sports network ) basically dropped the NHL off the face of the earth. To say that had little, to no effect on the NHL is beyond ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it's the worst thing that's happened to hockey in the last 15yrs. So to say it's not a big deal when it comes to the NHL and the NBC sports network channel or CBC, then sure, I guess its okay. But when it comes to ESPN and getting bad publicity on the "major " networks, it's nothing more than another black eye for hockey and it's limited fanbase... like it or not..The "Winter Classic " has helped get hockey back on the radar the last few years, lets not take a major step backwards...

ESPN dropped the NHL off the face of the planet due to the TV contract. It had nothing to do with the lockout. When the contract came up for renewal ESPN wanted a similar deal to what the contract prior was, i.e. they wanted hockey, but they wanted the NHL TO PAY THEM to broadcast it. Obviously, in every other sport besides possibly indoor lacrosse and women's hoops, ESPN or any media outlet would bid on what they would pay the league for the rights to broadcast games. It's big money obviously.

When NBC Sports ("vs" at the time, owned by Comcast, who now owns NBC Uni) proposed PAYING the NHL for the rights to broadcast, Bettman and co. ears perked up. Rightfully so. They weighed the options of paying ESPN or being paid by Comcast. With the NBC deal already in motion (it may have been going through the process of approval by the FCC due to it's "Monopoly" issue) they probably realized that ESPN would get more viewers instantly but in the long run they'd make more money with a contract that payed them. Not to mention that (at the time) IF the Comcast/NBC merger went through, that entity would use the NHL as their crown jewel... And NBC is a network. Not something to scoff at since NBC will always be available in more homes than ESPN.

ESPN rightfully, because Comcast/NBC Uni is rapidly becoming a competitor (certainly not an equal but a competitor) turned its back on the NHL. At least until they have to cover them in highlights, etc. If more people loved hockey, they wouldn't have that luxury.

there is not a single prospect outside of kreider that is expected to make the team out of camp...if guys like miller and thomas win spots in camp then you make moves to clear spots for them. but you don't leave spots open for a kid like miller who is more likely to return to juniors instead of going to the ahl than start in the nhl.